Showing posts with label Geoffrey W. Sutton. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Geoffrey W. Sutton. Show all posts

Friday, October 12, 2018

Altruism






In common language, we think of altruism as self-less actions that benefit others. In psychology, the concept of altruism has been studied for decades. 


Not surprisingly, researchers have looked at the benefits to the person acting altruistically as if such benefits might undermine the concept of altruism.

One scientist who is known for extensive study of altruism is Batson. Batson was skeptical of the concept of altruism but his experimental work changed his mind. Following is his definition (Batson, 2010).


By altruism I mean a motivational state with the ultimate goal of increasing
another's welfare. Altruism is juxtaposed to egoism, a motivational
state with the ultimate goal of increasing one's own welfare. I use the term
ultimate here to refer to means-end relations, not to a metaphysical first or
final cause. An ultimate goal is an end in itself. In contrast, an instrumental
goal is a stepping stone on the way to reaching an ultimate goal. If a barrier to
reaching an instrumental goal arises, then alternative routes to the ultimate
goal will be sought. Should the ultimate goal be reached while bypassing the
instrumental goal, the motivational force will disappear. If a goal is ultimate,
it cannot be bypassed in this way (Lewin, 1938). Both instrumental and ultimate
goals should be distinguished from unintended consequences, results of
an action—foreseen or unforeseen—that are not the goal of the action. Each
ultimate goal defines a distinct goal-directed motive. Hence, altruism and
egoism are distinct motives, even though they can co-occur (p. 16).

 Not all scholars agree with Batson. There is a problem of understanding human motivation thus, some have focused on helping behavior. A value of Batson's approach is the focus on motivation and the psychological understanding of goal-directed behavior. I appreciate his understanding of self-benefits, which may be due to unintended consequences or even the possibility that altruism and egoism may both be present.

Finally, I should point out that altruism research overlaps with studies of generosity. You will see online sources where generosity and altruism are synonyms (e.g., Oxford, 2018).

Read more about generosity and altruism in Chapter 3 of Living Well 10 BIG IDEAS of FAITH and a MEANINGFUL LIFE available on AMAZON.

















Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON





Reference


Batson, C. D. (2010). Empathy-induced altruistic motivation. In Prosocial motives, emotions, and behavior: The better angels of our nature. (pp. 15–34). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. https://doi.org/10.1037/12061-001 



Connections



My Page    www.suttong.com


My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE


FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)

Friday, September 28, 2018

Moral Foundations Theory (MFT)





Moral Foundations Theory 
(MFT) was developed by  Jonathan Haidt and his colleagues. (See references at the end of this post). A good overview of the theory can be found in the book, 
The Righteous Mind (2012).


 There are five core moral foundations in Moral Foundations Theory.

1 Care-Harm
2 Fairness/cheating (*equality-Fairness)
3 Loyalty-Betrayal
4 Authority-Respect; aka Authority/subversion
5 Purity-Sanctity aka Sanctity/degradation

An additional foundation of liberty has been added to the theory so there are now six foundations.

The core moral foundations

1 Care-Harm: derived from the development of attachment and empathy, people value the moral virtues of kindness, gentleness, and nurturance and abhor causing pain to others.

2 Fairness/cheating: people have developed a sense of reciprocal altruism, which leads to concerns for justice, rights, and autonomy. Equality was dropped in favor of a sense of proportionality.

3 Loyalty-Betrayal: people form groups and tribes and a sense of loyalty to the group, which supports patriotism and a willingness to sacrifice for the group.

4 Authority/subversion: people organize themselves into hierarchies and consider leadership a virtue. Followers are expected to defer to legitimate leaders and show respect for group traditions.

5 Sanctity/degradation: derived from research into the psychology of disgust and contamination, people find certain things and by extension, some people, to be disgusting. There is a separation for that which is unclean. In religion, that which is sacred is set apart from that which is profane. Cleanliness of self and clothing are virtues. The body is a temple in some religious teachings.

The expanded theory includes a consideration of liberty.

6. Liberty/ oppression: people resist oppression and leaders who restrict their liberty. People hate bullies and tyrants.

Researchers usually find support for a two factor model. 
Conservatives view moral issues from 3-5 perspectives with an emphasis on the foundations of loyalty, authority, and purity. Sociopolitical liberals emphasize care and fairness foundations. In A House Divided, you will  find examples of Christians using the same moral foundations in different ways. For example, in abortion arguments conservatives focus on care and harm of the unborn child and liberals emphasize care-harm concerns of the mother.


Notes
*I added the "aka" because you will find somewhat different words in some articles.



Consider buying Creating Surveys to help with your projects.


Available on AMAZON in multiple countries


Here are some applications of moral foundations theory:

For applications to Christian views of moral issues see A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality and Christian Cultures.

For a recent study of Moral Foundations Theory, Identity, and Politics, see Sutton, Kelly, and Huber (2019).

Link to learn more about the Moral Foundations Questionnaire



References


Graham, J., & Haidt, J. (2010). Beyond beliefs: Religions bind individuals into moral communities. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 14, 140–150. doi: 10.1177/1088868309353415
Graham, J., Haidt, J., & Nosek, B. A. (2009).  Liberals and conservatives rely on different sets of moral foundations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 1029-1046. doi:10.1037/a0015141
Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., & Haidt, J. (2012). The moral stereotypes of liberals and conservatives: Exaggeration of differences across the political spectrum. PLoS ONE, 7(12), e50092. http://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0050092

Graham, J., Nosek, B. A., Haidt, J., Iyer, R., Koleva, S., & Ditto, P. H. (2011). Mapping the moral domain. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 101, 366-385. doi:10.1037/a0021847
Haidt, J. (2001). The emotional dog and its rational tail: A social intuitionist approach to moral judgment. Psychological Review, 108, 814–834. doi:10.1037//0033-295x.108.4.814
Haidt, J., & Graham, J. (2007).  When morality opposes justice: Conservatives have moral intuitions that liberals may not recognize. Social Justice Research, 20, 98-116. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0034-z
Haidt, J., & Joseph, C. (2004). Intuitive ethics: How innately prepared intuitions generate culturally variable virtues. Daedalus: Special Issue on Human Nature, 133(4), 55–66. doi:10.1162/0011526042365555
Iyer, R., Koleva, S., Graham, J., Ditto, P., & Haidt, J. (2012). Understanding Libertarian morality: The psychological dispositions of self-identified Libertarians. Plos One, 7(8): e42366. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0042366
Johnson, K. A., Hook, J. N., Davis, D. E., Van Tongeren, D. R., Sandage, S. J., & Crabtree, S. A. (2016). Moral foundation priorities reflect U.S. Christians’ individual differences in religiosity. Personality and Individual Differences. doi: 10.1016/j.paid.2015.12.037.
Sutton, G. W. (2016). A House Divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888
Sutton, G. W., Kelly, H. L., & Huver, M. (2019). Political identities, religious identity, and the pattern of moral foundations among conservative Christians. Journal of Psychology and Theology, xx, pp. xx-xx. Accepted 6 September 2019. ResearchGate Link     Academia Link


Friday, September 21, 2018

Compassion



The behavioral science concept of compassion is similar to the common definition of the term.

Compassion is the feeling people describe when faced with another person’s 
suffering and the motivation to help reduce the impact of the suffering.



Compassion is related to the concepts of empathy and altruism but compassion is not the same as those concepts. Compassion involves emotional and cognitive empathy—the ability to take the perspective of another person and feel similar feelings. Compassion is different because it included the motivation to help improve someone’s situation.

Compassion shares with altruism the giving of oneself or resources to another. But compassion is not the only motive for altruism.

Compassion is related to love. The biology of compassion includes the presence of the hormone oxytocin, which has been called the “love drug” or the “bonding hormone.” In brain studies, the region of the brain linked to caring for others is activated in studies of empathy and caring. During sex, both men and women produce oxytocin. It’s also produced by women during childbirth and lactation.

Ad
Read more about love and compassion in Chapter 10 of Living Well on AMAZON.














One set of items to measure compassion is the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale (Hwang, Plante, & Lackey, 2008), which is derived from the longer, 21-item, Compassionate Love Scale (Sprecher & Fehr, 2005).






Creating Surveys

Create better surveys for work and school



DOWNLOAD today AMAZON



References
Hwang, J., Plante, T., & Lackey, K. (2008). The development of the Santa Clara Brief Compassion Scale: An abbreviation of Sprecher and Fehr's Compassionate Love Scale. Pastoral Psychology56, 421-428. doi:10.1007/s11089-008-0117-2
Sprecher, S., & Fehr, B. (2005). Compassionate love for close others and humanity. Journal of Social and Personal Relationships, 22, 629–651.
Sutton, G. W., Jordan, K., & Worthington, E.L., Jr. (2014). Spirituality, hope, compassion, and forgiveness: Contributions of Pentecostal spirituality to godly love. Journal of Psychology and Christianity33, 212-226. Academia Link     ResearchGate 

Photo credit: I took the photo of Convoy of Hope helping people on the site where the tornado of 2007 destroyed the Assemblies of God church in Greensburg Kansas, USA. The tornado wiped out over 90% of the city.
Related Posts
Connections and Links to Resources

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books   AMAZON

FACEBOOK   Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
    
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)





Friday, September 7, 2018

Humility


Humility is a characteristic of people who speak and behave as if they truly believe that others are equal in importance to themselves.  Humility involves an accurate appraisal of one’s strengths and weaknesses, culturally defined modesty when sharing with others, and a limited focus on oneself in interpersonal relationships.




We especially recognize humility when people considered important in a society do not act as if other people are less important.  We usually recognize humility by what people say or write but nonverbal actions like ignoring others, pushing people out of the way to grab a better position, or seeking special treatment also reflect a higher sense of self-importance and thus a lack of humility.

Humility as defined by Worthington and Scott (2018) page 4.

Humility has three qualities. Humble people are those who (a) have an
accurate sense of self, know their limitations, and are teachable; (b) present
themselves modestly in ways that do not put others off by arrogance or by
false, insincere modesty or displaying weakness; and (c) are especially oriented
to advancing others—not through groveling weakness but through power
under control, power used to build others up rather than squash them down.

Ev Worthington and Scott Allison (2018) explain that humility can be found in a single act, a temporary state, or identified as a personality trait. A humble act can be as simple as giving up one’s right to a seat or the right to speak. A humble state may be a situational state as in the presence of a respected leader but a state not found in other contexts. A trait is a pattern of behavior, which may be found in various contexts over time.

Three Types of Humility

1. People with cultural humility are open to the ideas, values, and cultures of people in different cultures as well as a recognition of the strengths and weaknesses of one’s own culture.

2. Intellectual humility appears as an appreciation of one’s own abilities and respect for the thoughts and capabilities of others. This contrasts with braggarts, know-it-alls, and those who overclaim their skills.

3. Spiritual humility entails a sense of awe and respect for God or gods and sacred practices such as prayer, baptism, and ceremonies, or sacred objects like altars, writings, and crosses.

Humility is a gateway virtue.


You might be interested -- Humility is Chapter One in Living Well on AMAZON.














Advertisement: Are you planning a survey?

Creating Surveys on AMAZON






References

Davis, D. E., Hook, J. N., McAnnally-Linz, R., Choe, E., & Placeres, V. (2017). Humility, religion, and spirituality: A review of the literature. Psychology of Religion And Spirituality9(3), 242-253. doi:10.1037/rel0000111

McElroy-Heltzel, S. E., Davis, D. E., DeBlaere, C., Worthington, E. L., & Hook, J. N. (2018). Embarrassment of riches in the measurement of humility: A critical review of 22 measures. The Journal of Positive Psychology, doi:10.1080/17439760.2018.1460686

Worthington, E. J., & Allison, S. T. (2018). Heroic humility: What the science of humility can say to people raised on self-focus (pp. 91-103). Washington, DC, US: American Psychological Association. doi:10.1037/0000079-006



Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)


Friday, August 17, 2018

Attachment to God



Attachment to God is an application of attachment theory to understand the relationship between people and God. As in attachment theory, the two dimensions of anxiety vs. peace or calm and avoidance vs. closeness can be measured separately, although the two dimensions are positively correlated.




Lee A. Kirkpatrick (2012) of the College of William and Mary along with his colleagues (e.g., Kirkpatrick & Shaver, 1990) is usually credited with an early application of attachment theory (e.g., Ainsworth, 1969; Bowlby, 1969) to believer-God relationships. Attachment to God may be limited to religions like Christianity, which explicitly use the language of family relationships such as God-father and offer parent-like descriptions of God as caring and loving.

Attachment to God has been measured in different ways. It is possible to use two items measuring the relationship to God as anxious or avoidant. However, the Attachment to God Inventory (AGI) developed by Richard Beck and Angie McDonald has been widely used with some success.

Related Posts





References

Ainsworth, M. D. S. (1969). Object relations, dependency, and attachment: A theoretical review of the infant-mother relationship. Child Development40, 969–1025.

Beck, R., & McDonald, A. (2004). Attachment to God: The attachment to God inventory, tests of working model correspondence, and an exploration of faith group differences. Journal of Psychology and Theology32, 92–103.


Bowlby, J. (1969). Attachment and loss: Vol. 1. Attachment. New York, NY: Basic Books.



Hall, T. W., Fujikawa, A., Halcrow, S. R., Hill, P.C., & Delaney, H. (2009). Attachment to God and implicit spirituality: Clarifying correspondence and compensation models. Journal of Psychology and Theology37, 227–242.


Kirkpatrick, L. A. (2012). Attachment theory and the evolutionary psychology of religion. International Journal for the Psychology of Religion22(3), 231-241. doi:10.1080/10508619.2012.679556

Kirkpatrick, L. A., & Shaver, P.R. (1990). Attachment theory and religion: Childhood attachments, religious beliefs, and conversion. Journal for the Scientific Study of Religion29, 315–334.


Sutton, G. W. & Mittelstadt, M. W. (2012). Loving God and loving others: Learning about love from psychological science and Pentecostal perspectives. Journal of Christianity and Psychology31, 157-166.


Sutton, G. W., McLeland, K. C., Weaks, K. Cogswell, P. E., & Miphouvieng, R. N. (2007). Does gender matter? An exploration of gender, spirituality, forgiveness and restoration following pastor transgressions. Pastoral Psychology. 55, 645-663. doi 10.1007/ s11089-007-0072-3 Online Link http://www.springerlink.com/content/ n11144j1655536l2/ Academia link Research Gate Link

Tjeltveit, A. C. (2006a). Psychology returns to love…of God and neighbor-as-self: Introduction to the special issue. Journal of Psychology and Theology34, 3–7.


Tjeltveit, A. C. (2006b). Psychology’s love-hate relationship with love: Critiques, affirmations, and Christian responses. Journal of Psychology and Theology34, 8–22.



Book Ad

Healthy parent-child relationships include respect.

Discipline with Respect is endorsed by parents, psychologists, counselors, and educators

Buy on AMAZON




Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)



Attachment and Attachment Theory


Anyone who has been around infants has a sense of the attachment bond between infants and their parents. 





Psychologists used to think the bonding was based on the infant’s natural desire for milk but that explanation changed when American scientists Harry and Margaret Harlow noticed that monkeys in their labs clung to their blankets when separated from their mothers. And they became very distressed when the blankets were taken away to be washed. In other studies, they found that young monkeys clung to cloth covered wire monkeys for security when anxious and as a safety point when exploring.

British physician John Bowlby returned from WWII to work with hospitalized children. His observations challenged the status quo views. Children need a loving caregiver to thrive. Separation and isolation are harmful and nutrition is not enough. Robert Hinde introduced Bowlby to the work of Konrad Lorenz on animal attachments (see below).

Canadian scientist Mary Ainsworth worked with Bowlby when she was in London. Later she examined Bowlby's attachment ideas in experiments at American universities using the "Strange Situation" test. She discovered three patterns of attachment. In securely attached children (two-thirds of the sample), mothers functioned as a base for exploration and a source of comfort following a brief separation. But one-third did not seem to respond differently when mother was present or absent--later studies suggested they repressed distress and acted independently--avoidant attachment. The remaining group appeared anxious and clingy throughout the study--resistant attachment.

As Jonathan Haidt observes, love conquers fear--wisdom from an ancient writer about perfect love 1 John 4:18.

Researchers Cindy Hazan and Phil Shaver developed a test for adult attachments based on the findings of Mary Ainsworth. Their findings suggested a fairly constant attachment pattern persisting into adulthood from childhood. Secure adults appear happier, have longer relationships, and have lower rates of divorce.

Familiarity Breeds Content.
Konrad Lorenz is famous for his studies of imprinting—newly hatched ducks followed him as if he were their parent. Children do not imprint (i.e., form attachments) like ducks but they do feel more secure in familiar surroundings and in the presence of familiar objects. The observation has been called the mere exposure effect. Young children enjoy familiar toys, rereading familiar stories and videos. Adults continue to enjoy familiar foods, places, and people. Most enjoy old photos and familiar stories from childhood.

Separation or Lack of Attachment in Children
Researchers have documented the serious problems found among children raised in institutions without loving caregivers. Such children are easily frightened, withdrawn, and may be speechless. Children who have been abused when they were young are at risk for abusing children when they become parents. Although many violent adults were abused as children, the reverse is not true. Many abused children do not become violent adults.

Adolescent Attachments
The human attachment system works with the human mating system. Youth seek and attach to their  romantic partners and demonstrate clingy cuddling behavior like young children. You can see this interaction on the lawns of colleges on a warm day. Psychologist Jonathan Haidt reminds us of the ancient wisdom found in Mark10:7-9 about young couples leaving their parents and joining as "one flesh."

Adult Romantic Attachments

Romantic attachment in adults follows the pattern of infants and mothers (or caregivers). Romantic partners function as attachment figures for each other. When partners are separated by death, friends do not help as much as parental support.

Adult attachment has been studied by various scientists. Nancy Collins of UCSB and her colleagues developed a measure of Adult Attachment, which includes a subscale of "Depend," which measures how much a person feels they can depend on someone when needed. This scale, revised in 1996, measures romantic relationships. There is also a reworded version that can be used to assess attachment in close relationships rather than only romantic ones.

Ad. Read more about attachment and sexuality in A House Divided: Sexuality, Morality, and Christian Cultures on AMAZON and other booksellers worldwide.














Parent-Child Attachment
The human caregiver systems also work in tandem with children's attachment systems. Children's distress signals alert parents to respond with care-giving behavior that brings child and parent into close contact whether feeding or comforting.

Oxytocin Factor
Public media have overdosed on oxytocin effects; however, oxytocin does provide a sort of biochemical glue, which rises during sex--especially when there is persistent close contact. And oxytocin is at work when mothers give birth and nurse.

Attachment to God
See the related post to learn how researchers apply the theory to the relationship between humans and God.

Ad. Read more about love and compassion in chapter 10 of Living Well



Attachment Summary Notes

The attachment model of love rests on a firm foundation of ancient wisdom, observations of behavior in animals and humans, and psychological science.

A child's attachment system often persists into adulthood and accounts for important aspects of secure and insecure romantic relationships.

Attachment theory helps explain different relationships people have with God or gods.

Attachment theory helps explain a part of what happens when a spouse dies leaving the living spouse with a severe loss of comfort and support. Often, friends won't help as much as a parent.

The infant's attachment system interacts with the parent's care-giving system in human adults binding parent and child in a loving relationship.

Attachment may range from highly secure to highly insecure, very close to very avoidant, and very calm to very anxious.

Insecure attachment may be evident in avoidant behavior, but the person may experience considerable inner distress even when appearing not to care.

Insecure attachment may be evident in anxious and clingy behavior in children and adults.

Separating children from harmless parents produces harm. Food and shelter are important, but love is critical for survival.

Related Posts

Attachment to God

Attachment to God Inventory

Adult Attachment Scale


References

Ainsworth, M. S., & Bowlby, J. (1991). An ethological approach to personality development. American Psychologist, 46(4), 333-341. doi:10.1037/0003-066X.46.4.333

Bretherton, I. (1992). The origins of attachment theory: John Bowlby and Mary Ainsworth. Developmental Psychology, 28(5), 759-775. doi:10.1037/0012-1649.28.5.759

Collins, N. L. (1996).  Working models of attachment: Implications for explanation, emotion, and behavior.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 810-832.

Collins, N. L., & Read, S. J. (1990).  Adult attachment, working models, and relationship quality in dating couples.  Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 644-663.

Haidt, J. (2006). The happiness hypothesis: Finding modern truth in ancient wisdom. Cambridge, MA: Basic Books

Harlow, H. F. (1958). The nature of love. American Psychologist, 13, 673–685.

Suomi, S. J., van der Horst, F. P., & van der Veer, R. (2008). Rigorous experiments on monkey love: An account of Harry F. Harlow's role in the history of attachment theory. Integrative Psychological & Behavioral Science, 42(4), 354-369. doi:10.1007/s12124-008-9072-9

Sutton, G. W. & Mittelstadt, M. W. (2012). Loving God and loving others: Learning about love from psychological science and Pentecostal perspectives. Journal of Christianity and Psychology, 31, 157-166.  Academia Link Research Gate Link

Ad: Keep parents and children close with respectful discipline

Discipline with Respect on AMAZON






Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton

LinkedIN Geoffrey Sutton  PhD

Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)







Wednesday, August 26, 2015

Effective Apologies

APOLOGIES

What Works?

Individuals and business leaders often find themselves apologizing or dealing with requests for an apology. Most are seeking forgiveness and many wish to make things right. But correcting mistakes is not always easy.

An apology is a statement that acknowledges offence or failure accompanied by an expression of regret. Psychological research adds features found to be effective in the sense that most people will accept the apology.




Having an affair destroys most romantic relationships
Some partners do forgive and reconcile. Many do not. In an age of ubiquitous cameras, high speed internet communication, and hackers, odds increase that cheaters will be revealed to a wide audience. Of course, it’s not just the spouse or partner who suffers—children, relatives, and close friends hurt as well.

Usually the small stuff can be handled with an “I’m sorry” as long as it appears genuine. 
When the offense causes some difficulty, reputable businesses make amends. For example, after incorrect ticketing in China, I was moved to business class–too bad it was only an hour flight! Larger offenses cause more distress and law suits are costly.

Church leaders know a lot about public apologies too.
Canadian leaders apologized for the way early Canadians ill-treated First Nations People in residential schools. Many of the schools were religious. Catholic leaders apologized for clergy sexual abuse of children and cover-ups. From time to time religious leaders admit to sexual infidelity.

FIRST with TRUTH

FIRST with TRUTH is an easy way to remember six effective components of an apology. The letters in the word "TRUTH" refer to five ideas linked to research. Add the concept of being "FIRST" and you have my six suggestions.

  Apologies usually work as a package.

People receiving an apology often need several items to be present to forgive the offense. Keep in mind that apologies do not always work. And the setting needs to be safe for all involved. Finally, in serious matters, consult an attorney.

1. Be FIRST in telling the truth. Apologies are more effective when people and businesses do not wait until they are caught. Reputable businesses recall their faulty products when they discover something is wrong. Hiding the truth can look like a "cover-up," which victims despise. Covering up the truth has serious negative consequences. Consider the plight of churches that covered up clergy abuse.

People who want a trusting relationship apologize for events likely to have an impact on their partner or spouse. If you damaged the car or broke something meaningful it’s usually good to confess before your partner finds out.

But, some acts like an affair evoke strong emotions such that the victim needs to be prepared to receive an apology. If in doubt, ask a third party like a counselor or mediator to help. So apologizing before being caught is a general rule but exceptions exist when a confession can lead to harm.

2. Tell the TRUTH. A complete and truthful apology is important. Clearly state, “I apologize.” And clearly state what you apologize for. Provide sufficient details so it’s clear that you recognize the problem you or your business caused. If you’re not good at expressing yourself, ask for help.

3. Take RESPONSIBILITY. “I was wrong.” Admitting fault is often a key to an effective apology. Leave off excuses and explanations that can sound like excuses. Giving reasons for what you did can sound like it’s not your fault, which discounts the effectiveness of your apology.

4. UNDO the harm. Undoing the harm can be impossible in some cases but a sincere and generous offer can go a long way toward making amends. When my wife and I had problems with work on our house, the business apologized, refunded our final payment, and hired a professional to make it right.

In personal matters, it may take a third party to mediate a settlement. Counselors, clergy, and professional mediators can sometimes help.

5. Demonstrate REMORSE. Most people need to see evidence of remorse-sometimes it means seeing an emotional response consistent with remorse. This is a tough one. Some offenders cry easily and others have difficulty showing emotion even when they feel remorseful. In contrast, some victims have been burned so badly that they do not trust displays of emotion as genuine, whilst others are quick to accept an apology and forgive with any reasonable sign of remorse. When you can see the offense from the perspective of the victim, you are likely on your way toward an empathy. Empathy is a key to feeling remorseful.

6. HUMBLY explain the HISTORY of the events leading up to the offense in response to questions. Many people want answers. They want to know why you or your business did such a thing. People want satisfactory answers but what satisfies one person may not satisfy another. And, as noted above, keep in mind explanations can sound like excuses.

Perhaps humility is a key here. All honest people can do is share their version of events leading up to the offense. In some cases you may need to verify relevant facts or events. Even when things cannot be undone as in the case of a death as a result of an accident, families still want to know the details of what happened.

BOOK AD:  A HOUSE DIVIDED 




References

           Kirchhoff, J., Wagner, U., & Strack, M. (2012). Apologies: Words of magic? The role of verbal components, anger reduction, and offence severity. Peace and Conflict: Journal of Peace Psychology, 18, 109-130.  doi 10.1037/a002809

Sutton, G. W. (2016). A house divided: Sexuality, morality, and Christian cultures. Eugene, OR: Pickwick. ISBN: 9781498224888

Thomas, E. K., & Sutton, G.W. (2008). Religious leadership failure: Forgiveness, apology, and restitution. Journal of Spirituality in Mental Health, 10, 308-327. Academia Link    Research Gate Link

Thomas, E. K., White, K., & Sutton, G.W. (2008). Religious leadership failure: Apology, responsibility-taking, gender, forgiveness, and restoration. Journal of Psychology and Christianity, 27, 16-29. Academia Link    Research Gate Link

           Wilkinson, M. (2010). Public acts of forgiveness: What happens when Canadian churches and governments seek forgiveness for social sins of the past?  In M. Mittelstadt & G. W. Sutton (eds). Forgiveness, reconciliation, and restoration: Multidisciplinary studies from a Pentecostal perspective. (pp. 177–198). Eugene, OR: Pickwick Publications. http://wipfandstock.com/pickwick_publications


Connections

My Page    www.suttong.com

My Books  
 AMAZON     GOOGLE PLAY STORE

FACEBOOK  
 Geoff W. Sutton

TWITTER  @Geoff.W.Sutton



Publications (many free downloads)
     
  Academia   Geoff W Sutton   (PhD)
     
  ResearchGate   Geoffrey W Sutton   (PhD)